So, you plan to rewrite the documentation starting out from a blank sheet,
right? Then I indeed shouldn't put more energy into the conversion, and at
least Docgen has become more capable while trying to port the existing
documentation. The new examples should be chosen so that they are
realistically runnable inside Docgen (and if it's not too hard, with Docgen
running on Windows).

Java 8 date/time wrapping and formatting is clearly top priority, yes. And
then at least some basic date/time operations.

On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 7:11 PM Siegfried Goeschl <
siegfried.goes...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Daniel,
>
> Don't be so harsh ;-)
>
> * No plans to maintain the Maven site after the initial release
> * This is open source and therefore best effort
> * Guess supporting Java 8 date / time is much more important for the
> community
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Siegfried Goeschl
>
>
> > On 24.10.2021, at 23:38, Daniel Dekany <daniel.dek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I did not mean that any of them are blocking.
> >
> > Keeping two documentation up to date is a growing pain. It's my weakness
> > though that it's still not done. Yet, if you plan to do a bigger
> reworking,
> > it's better done on the DocBook version.
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 6:58 PM Siegfried Goeschl <
> > siegfried.goes...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Daniel,
> >>
> >> Both topics are non-blocking in my opinion
> >>
> >> Regarding documentation:
> >>
> >> A complete Maven website including Markdown content is generated. And
> >> documentation will be updated, extended and moved to Docbook but that
> can
> >> be done any time - no need to introduce additional dependencies
> >>
> >> Regarding backward compatibility:
> >>
> >> * The code is mostly written by one person and that's me - so it is not
> a
> >> mature code base
> >> * There are hardly any users out there and new user will detect bugs,
> >> suggest improvements or will tell you that some parts are simply broken
> by
> >> design - enforcing backward compatibility will do some harm here
> >> * I consider backward compatibility important assuming that you HAVE
> many
> >> users out there
> >> * It is a command-line tools mostly used by developers and they know
> what
> >> a 0.x release means - some things are in motion and need time to settle
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance,
> >>
> >> Siegfried Goeschl
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 24.10.2021, at 15:16, Daniel Dekany <daniel.dek...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Yes, I guess we can get away with the Maven generated site, if the
> >> standard
> >>> ASF footer and that conference ad thingy can be added. It would be more
> >>> rational to push through with the conversion to DocBook though. The
> main
> >>> cause of the slowdown is that I had this idea that we actually run
> >>> everything that we show, and never copy-paste sources and output. That
> >> was
> >>> proven to be tricky in many cases, and is still unsolved in some (like
> >>> where the example uses Linux shell features). I should just let that go
> >> for
> >>> now and push through with the conversion with copy-pasting where we
> still
> >>> have problems. On that note, I wonder if you want to rework the content
> >>> anyway, like we want to move most examples outside the documentation,
> and
> >>> then people can open them in IDE, modify them to play around, etc. If
> you
> >>> do such reworking, or any serious reworking really, that should be
> >> already
> >>> done in DocBook.
> >>>
> >>> The warning about no backward compatibility needs to be apparent from
> >>> whatever documentation we release (the DocBook version has it).
> Backward
> >>> compatibility is really the main pain with the release. As we promise
> not
> >>> backward compatibility, we basically release software without promising
> >>> later support. People can still decide to use it (or they just don't
> >>> realize what this means). But, you may feel pressure to keep backward
> >>> compatibility instead of doing the right thing, which at this stage is
> >>> maybe not wise. (Also no support can be tricky when there's a security
> >>> issue with an old release. Although that's probably less relevant for a
> >>> tool like this.)
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 1:02 PM Siegfried Goeschl <
> >>> siegfried.goes...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Daniel,
> >>>>
> >>>> There is still the Maven-based site which can be created using
> >>>>
> >>>>> mvn clean site site:stage
> >>>>
> >>>> I will look into the source release packages ...
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks in advance,
> >>>>
> >>>> Siegfried Goeschl
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 24.10.2021, at 11:38, Daniel Dekany <daniel.dek...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Still no site for example. Note sure about the others, had to review
> >> last
> >>>>> time's list.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Can we build a source release package with all the necessary
> >>>>> NOTICE-s/LICENSE-s and signing? For this kind of project we will also
> >>>> want
> >>>>> a binary release package.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 6:59 PM Siegfried Goeschl <
> >>>>> siegfried.goes...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi folks,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What stops us from having the first release? Any blockers we are
> aware
> >>>> of?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks in advance,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Siegfried Goeschl
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>> Daniel Dekany
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Best regards,
> >>> Daniel Dekany
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Daniel Dekany
>
>

-- 
Best regards,
Daniel Dekany

Reply via email to